Steven wrote: "I believe that my intuition is correct. That is, he intends it in the context of fallibilism and hence he is redeemed in my eye. I'll post a series of quotes later in order to demonstrate my argument."
It would be exceedingly helpful for you to to that, Steven. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed, hence my surprise. The standing question is the actual sense in > which Peirce intended his comments. On further reading, I believe that my > intuition is correct. That is, he intends it in the context of fallibilism > and hence he is redeemed in my eye. I'll post a series of quotes later in > order to demonstrate my argument. > > Steven > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:18 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Smolin has been recognized as a heavyweight in physics (and cosmology) >> for some time. I haven't read this book, but the others I have read are >> very carefully balanced. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >> *Sent:* March 20, 2015 2:04 PM >> *To:* Søren Brier >> *Cc:* Jon Awbrey; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky; Jerry LR >> Chandler; Peirce List >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics >> >> >> >> I responded to Soren. In fact, I mention Smolin in the post to which >> Soren responded. I am well aware of Smolin's work - and I am surprised at >> it. Since when has eminence held muster in science? :-) >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jon >> >> Thanks. I just wanted to remind Steven that an eminent modern physicist >> found it possible to uphold his position while having a view close to >> Peirce's. >> >> Søren >> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >> Fra: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sendt: 19. marts 2015 15:32 >> Til: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky >> Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List >> Emne: Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics >> >> Re: Søren Brier >> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878 >> >> Søren, List, >> >> Smolin's 'Time Reborn' was the subject, or at least the instigation, of >> much discussion here and there around the web a couple years ago. >> From a cursory search, I think it was Michael Shapiro who broached the >> topic on the Peirce List, inciting discussions that went on for the rest of >> the summer: >> >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-05/msg00028.html >> >> I recall blogging on it and adding a quote from Peirce in connection with >> a discussion on a blog devoted to computational complexity and the theory >> of computation: >> >> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/ >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On 3/19/2015 2:13 AM, Søren Brier wrote: >> > Dear Steven >> > >> > Are you aware of the work of Unger and Smolin where they argue for the >> evolution of laws? >> > The Singular Universe....THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME >> > Cambridge University Press, November 30, 2014. >> > Synopsis >> > This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of nature. We >> argue for the inclusive reality of time as well as for the mutability of >> the laws of nature. We seek to breathe new life and meaning into natural >> philosophy -- a form of reasoning that crosses the boundaries between >> science and philosophy. >> > The work should appeal to a broad educated readership as well as to >> scientists and philosophers. It is not a popularization, but neither does >> it use a technical vocabulary that would restrict it to specialized >> readers. The subjects that it addresses are of paramount interest to people >> in many disciplines outside cosmology and physics. >> > In the twentieth century, physics and cosmology overturned the idea of >> an unchanging background of time and space. In so doing, however, they >> maintained the idea of an immutable framework of laws of nature. This >> second idea must now also be attacked and replaced. What results is a new >> picture of the agenda of physics and cosmology as well as of the methods of >> fundamental science. >> > The book develops four inter-related themes: >> > 1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of >> many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The >> current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning. >> > 2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of >> nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time >> has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs. >> > 3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. >> There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs >> that they govern.. >> > 4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it >> to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism) >> in order to make sense of its "unreasonable effectiveness" in science. >> > We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as well >> as by detailed examples, that these principles are the only way theoretical >> cosmology can break out of its current crisis in a manner that is >> scientific, i.e. results in falsifiable predictions for doable experiments. >> > >> > And Smolin's Time Reborn >> > "What is time? >> > >> > It's the sort of question we rarely ask because it seems so obvious. >> And yet, to a physicist, time is simply a human construct and an illusion. >> If you could somehow get outside the universe and observe it from there, >> you would see that every moment has always existed and always will. Lee >> Smolin disagrees, and in Time Reborn he lays out the case why. >> > >> > Recent developments in physics and cosmology point toward the reality >> of time and the openness of the future. Smolin's groundbreaking theory >> postulates that physical laws can evolve over time and the future is not >> yet determined. Newton's fundamental laws may not remain so fundamental." >> > Smolin quotes Peirce several times in this book for the view that >> different laws emerging in the course of the development of the universe >> over time. >> > >> > Søren >> > >> >> -- >> >> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: >> http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >> >> >> > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
